Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
## (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 250 | 51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75) | 50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75) | 51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75) | 0.559 |
gender | 250 | 0.327 | |||
f | 204 (82%) | 99 (79%) | 105 (84%) | ||
m | 46 (18%) | 26 (21%) | 20 (16%) | ||
occupation | 250 | 0.711 | |||
day_training | 6 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
full_time | 29 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 15 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.4%) | ||
part_time | 43 (17%) | 23 (18%) | 20 (16%) | ||
retired | 61 (24%) | 28 (22%) | 33 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 4 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.6%) | 3 (2.4%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 55 (22%) | 29 (23%) | 26 (21%) | ||
marital | 250 | 0.776 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
divore | 27 (11%) | 15 (12%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
in_relationship | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
married | 76 (30%) | 35 (28%) | 41 (33%) | ||
none | 117 (47%) | 59 (47%) | 58 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (7.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
edu | 250 | 0.690 | |||
bachelor | 54 (22%) | 24 (19%) | 30 (24%) | ||
diploma | 42 (17%) | 25 (20%) | 17 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 17 (6.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
primary | 22 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 13 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 66 (26%) | 31 (25%) | 35 (28%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.2%) | 6 (4.8%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
fam_income | 250 | ||||
10001_12000 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
18001_20000 | 12 (4.8%) | 8 (6.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
20001_above | 43 (17%) | 26 (21%) | 17 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 37 (15%) | 18 (14%) | 19 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 22 (8.8%) | 13 (10%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.0%) | 11 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
below_2000 | 46 (18%) | 21 (17%) | 25 (20%) | ||
medication | 250 | 224 (90%) | 112 (90%) | 112 (90%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 250 | 15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63) | 14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56) | 15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63) | 0.814 |
onset_age | 250 | 36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72) | 35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72) | 36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68) | 0.732 |
diagnosis_schizophrenia | 250 | 50 (20%) | 25 (20%) | 25 (20%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_delusional | 250 | 13 (5.2%) | 7 (5.6%) | 6 (4.8%) | 0.776 |
diagnosis_schizoaffective | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_schizoid | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_transient_psychotic | 250 | 2 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic | 250 | ||||
no | 250 (100%) | 125 (100%) | 125 (100%) | ||
diagnosis_depression | 250 | 138 (55%) | 69 (55%) | 69 (55%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_bipolar | 250 | 24 (9.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 14 (11%) | 0.390 |
diagnosis_anxiety | 250 | 87 (35%) | 46 (37%) | 41 (33%) | 0.507 |
diagnosis_phobia | 250 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | 0.197 |
diagnosis_personality_disorders | 250 | 3 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 0.247 |
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_other | 250 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | 0.323 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 250 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.406 |
recovery_stage_b | 250 | 17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24) | 17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24) | 17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24) | 0.835 |
ras_confidence | 250 | 29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45) | 30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45) | 0.637 |
ras_willingness | 250 | 11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15) | 11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15) | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 0.905 |
ras_goal | 250 | 17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.413 |
ras_reliance | 250 | 13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20) | 13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20) | 0.614 |
ras_domination | 250 | 9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15) | 9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15) | 0.206 |
symptom | 250 | 30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70) | 31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70) | 30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56) | 0.301 |
slof_work | 250 | 22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30) | 0.989 |
slof_relationship | 250 | 24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35) | 24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35) | 25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35) | 0.252 |
satisfaction | 250 | 20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35) | 19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35) | 21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35) | 0.136 |
mhc_emotional | 250 | 10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19) | 10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19) | 0.459 |
mhc_social | 250 | 15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30) | >0.999 |
mhc_psychological | 250 | 21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36) | 21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36) | 0.715 |
resilisnce | 250 | 16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30) | 0.177 |
social_provision | 250 | 13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 0.032 |
els_value_living | 250 | 16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25) | 16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25) | 17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25) | 0.331 |
els_life_fulfill | 250 | 12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20) | 12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20) | 13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20) | 0.100 |
els | 250 | 29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45) | 29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45) | 30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45) | 0.154 |
social_connect | 250 | 27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48) | 27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48) | 26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48) | 0.293 |
shs_agency | 250 | 14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24) | 0.110 |
shs_pathway | 250 | 15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24) | 15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24) | 16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24) | 0.057 |
shs | 250 | 30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48) | 29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48) | 0.070 |
esteem | 250 | 12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20) | 12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20) | 0.732 |
mlq_search | 250 | 14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21) | 0.105 |
mlq_presence | 250 | 13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21) | 13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21) | 13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21) | 0.396 |
mlq | 250 | 28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42) | 27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42) | 28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42) | 0.183 |
empower | 250 | 19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30) | 19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 0.351 |
ismi_resistance | 250 | 14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 0.981 |
ismi_discrimation | 250 | 11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20) | 11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20) | 11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20) | 0.823 |
sss_affective | 250 | 10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.629 |
sss_behavior | 250 | 10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.867 |
sss_cognitive | 250 | 8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.402 |
sss | 250 | 29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54) | 29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 0.682 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.108 | 2.99, 3.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.128 | 0.153 | -0.429, 0.173 | 0.405 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.030 | 0.131 | -0.227, 0.287 | 0.819 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.191 | 0.190 | -0.181, 0.562 | 0.316 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.269 | 17.4, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.381 | -0.826, 0.666 | 0.834 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.159 | 0.236 | -0.622, 0.304 | 0.502 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.00 | 0.343 | 0.329, 1.67 | 0.004 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.503 | 28.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.336 | 0.712 | -1.06, 1.73 | 0.637 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.693 | 0.383 | -0.058, 1.44 | 0.072 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.995 | 0.556 | -0.096, 2.09 | 0.075 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.182 | 11.3, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.032 | 0.258 | -0.474, 0.538 | 0.901 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.043 | 0.169 | -0.288, 0.374 | 0.798 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.259 | 0.245 | -0.221, 0.740 | 0.291 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.290 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.344 | 0.410 | -0.459, 1.15 | 0.402 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.409 | 0.247 | -0.076, 0.894 | 0.100 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.396 | 0.359 | -0.308, 1.10 | 0.272 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.263 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.184 | 0.372 | -0.545, 0.913 | 0.621 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.343 | 0.201 | -0.051, 0.737 | 0.090 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.303 | 0.292 | -0.270, 0.875 | 0.301 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.214 | 9.53, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.392 | 0.303 | -0.985, 0.201 | 0.196 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.119 | 0.205 | -0.282, 0.521 | 0.561 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.721 | 0.297 | 0.140, 1.30 | 0.016 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.5 | 0.877 | 29.8, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.29 | 1.240 | -3.72, 1.14 | 0.300 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.44 | 0.619 | -2.65, -0.223 | 0.021 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.109 | 0.900 | -1.87, 1.65 | 0.904 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.1 | 0.409 | 21.3, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.579 | -1.14, 1.13 | 0.989 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.432 | 0.332 | -0.219, 1.08 | 0.194 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.112 | 0.482 | -0.833, 1.06 | 0.817 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.5 | 0.513 | 23.5, 25.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.725 | -0.581, 2.26 | 0.248 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.477 | 0.402 | -0.311, 1.26 | 0.237 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.222 | 0.583 | -0.921, 1.37 | 0.704 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.7 | 0.643 | 18.4, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.37 | 0.909 | -0.414, 3.15 | 0.133 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.30 | 0.472 | 0.370, 2.22 | 0.007 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.013 | 0.686 | -1.36, 1.33 | 0.985 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.336 | 9.99, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.352 | 0.475 | -0.579, 1.28 | 0.459 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.448 | 0.248 | -0.039, 0.934 | 0.073 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.051 | 0.360 | -0.757, 0.655 | 0.888 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.543 | 14.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.768 | -1.51, 1.51 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.792 | 0.410 | -0.012, 1.60 | 0.055 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.383 | 0.596 | -0.785, 1.55 | 0.521 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.629 | 20.3, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.320 | 0.889 | -1.42, 2.06 | 0.719 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.17 | 0.458 | 0.274, 2.07 | 0.011 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.182 | 0.665 | -1.49, 1.12 | 0.784 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.388 | 15.4, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.760 | 0.548 | -0.315, 1.83 | 0.167 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.623 | 0.335 | -0.033, 1.28 | 0.064 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.500 | 0.485 | -0.451, 1.45 | 0.304 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.250 | 12.7, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.744 | 0.354 | 0.051, 1.44 | 0.036 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.003 | 0.198 | -0.392, 0.385 | 0.986 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.341 | 0.287 | -0.222, 0.905 | 0.236 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.284 | 16.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.392 | 0.402 | -0.396, 1.18 | 0.330 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.378 | 0.221 | -0.055, 0.811 | 0.089 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.259 | 0.321 | -0.370, 0.888 | 0.420 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.294 | 11.8, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.696 | 0.415 | -0.118, 1.51 | 0.095 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.347 | 0.212 | -0.068, 0.762 | 0.103 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.129 | 0.308 | -0.474, 0.732 | 0.676 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.537 | 28.1, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 0.759 | -0.401, 2.58 | 0.153 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.725 | 0.370 | 0.000, 1.45 | 0.051 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.400 | 0.537 | -0.653, 1.45 | 0.457 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 0.820 | 26.3, 29.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.22 | 1.160 | -3.49, 1.06 | 0.295 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.849 | 0.601 | -2.03, 0.328 | 0.159 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.10 | 0.872 | -2.81, 0.613 | 0.210 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.444 | 13.0, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.629 | -0.224, 2.24 | 0.110 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.363 | 0.326 | -0.276, 1.00 | 0.267 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.523 | 0.474 | -0.406, 1.45 | 0.271 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.361 | 14.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.510 | 0.009, 2.01 | 0.049 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.602 | 0.287 | 0.040, 1.16 | 0.037 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.217 | 0.416 | -0.599, 1.03 | 0.602 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.766 | 27.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.02 | 1.084 | -0.109, 4.14 | 0.064 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.966 | 0.558 | -0.127, 2.06 | 0.085 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.748 | 0.810 | -0.840, 2.34 | 0.357 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.142 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.072 | 0.201 | -0.466, 0.322 | 0.720 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.132 | 0.152 | -0.430, 0.166 | 0.387 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.174 | 0.220 | -0.258, 0.605 | 0.431 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.309 | 13.8, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.720 | 0.437 | -0.136, 1.58 | 0.100 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.708 | 0.297 | 0.125, 1.29 | 0.018 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.789 | 0.431 | -1.63, 0.056 | 0.068 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.378 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.464 | 0.535 | -0.584, 1.51 | 0.386 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.617 | 0.319 | -0.007, 1.24 | 0.054 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.175 | 0.462 | -0.730, 1.08 | 0.705 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.5 | 0.617 | 26.3, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.873 | -0.527, 2.89 | 0.176 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.32 | 0.533 | 0.279, 2.37 | 0.014 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.597 | 0.773 | -2.11, 0.918 | 0.441 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 0.405 | 18.1, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.528 | 0.573 | -0.594, 1.65 | 0.357 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.882 | 0.317 | 0.260, 1.50 | 0.006 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.008 | 0.460 | -0.894, 0.911 | 0.986 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.222 | 13.9, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.314 | -0.624, 0.608 | 0.980 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.216 | 0.224 | -0.223, 0.654 | 0.336 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.438 | 0.324 | -0.197, 1.07 | 0.178 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.275 | 11.3, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.088 | 0.388 | -0.849, 0.673 | 0.821 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.421 | 0.261 | -0.932, 0.089 | 0.107 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.411 | 0.378 | -1.15, 0.329 | 0.277 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.325 | 9.76, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.224 | 0.459 | -0.676, 1.12 | 0.626 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.335 | 0.240 | -0.805, 0.134 | 0.163 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.592 | 0.348 | -1.27, 0.090 | 0.090 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.333 | 9.52, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.471 | -1.00, 0.843 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.490 | 0.248 | -0.976, -0.003 | 0.050 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.245 | 0.360 | -0.952, 0.461 | 0.496 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.71 | 0.335 | 8.06, 9.37 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.408 | 0.473 | -0.519, 1.34 | 0.389 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.250 | 0.245 | -0.731, 0.230 | 0.309 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.653 | 0.356 | -1.35, 0.044 | 0.068 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.935 | 27.5, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.552 | 1.323 | -2.04, 3.14 | 0.677 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.10 | 0.621 | -2.31, 0.121 | 0.079 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.44 | 0.902 | -3.21, 0.332 | 0.113 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.33) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(452) = 29.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(452) = -0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29], t(452) = 0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.56], t(452) = 1.01, p = 0.315; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(452) = 66.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(452) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.30], t(452) = -0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [0.33, 1.67], t(452) = 2.92, p = 0.004; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.11, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.67], t(452) = 59.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(452) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.44], t(452) = 1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.10, 2.09], t(452) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.27, 11.98], t(452) = 63.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.54], t(452) = 0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37], t(452) = 0.26, p = 0.798; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.74], t(452) = 1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.62, 17.75], t(452) = 59.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(452) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.89], t(452) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.10], t(452) = 1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(452) = 50.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91], t(452) = 0.50, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.74], t(452) = 1.70, p = 0.088; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.87], t(452) = 1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(452) = 46.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(452) = -1.30, p = 0.195; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.52], t(452) = 0.58, p = 0.560; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [0.14, 1.30], t(452) = 2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [0.06, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.00e-02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.21], t(452) = 35.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.14], t(452) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-2.65, -0.22], t(452) = -2.32, p = 0.020; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.27, -0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.87, 1.65], t(452) = -0.12, p = 0.904; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(452) = 53.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.13], t(452) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.08], t(452) = 1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.06], t(452) = 0.23, p = 0.816; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(452) = 47.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.26], t(452) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.26], t(452) = 1.19, p = 0.235; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.37], t(452) = 0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.40, 20.92], t(452) = 30.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(452) = 1.50, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [0.37, 2.22], t(452) = 2.74, p = 0.006; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.05, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.33], t(452) = -0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = -1.82e-03, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.31], t(452) = 31.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(452) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.93], t(452) = 1.80, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.66], t(452) = -0.14, p = 0.888; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.77e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(452) = 27.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.08e-13, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.51], t(452) = 7.92e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = -9.19e-17, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.01, 1.60], t(452) = 1.93, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-2.04e-03, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.55], t(452) = 0.64, p = 0.520; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.78], t(452) = 34.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(452) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [0.27, 2.07], t(452) = 2.56, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.04, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.49, 1.12], t(452) = -0.27, p = 0.784; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.42, 16.94], t(452) = 41.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.83], t(452) = 1.39, p = 0.166; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.28], t(452) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-7.48e-03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.45], t(452) = 1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(452) = 52.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(452) = 2.10, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.38], t(452) = -0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = -1.22e-03, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.90], t(452) = 1.19, p = 0.235; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(452) = 58.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(452) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.81], t(452) = 1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.89], t(452) = 0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(452) = 42.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(452) = 1.68, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.76], t(452) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.73], t(452) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.12, 30.22], t(452) = 54.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.40, 2.58], t(452) = 1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-7.64e-05, 1.45], t(452) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.28e-05, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.45], t(452) = 0.74, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(452) = 33.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.06], t(452) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.03, 0.33], t(452) = -1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-2.81, 0.61], t(452) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.97, 14.71], t(452) = 31.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 2.24], t(452) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.00], t(452) = 1.11, p = 0.265; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.45], t(452) = 1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.03], t(452) = 42.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [8.64e-03, 2.01], t(452) = 1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [2.13e-03, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [0.04, 1.16], t(452) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [9.89e-03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.03], t(452) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.67, 30.67], t(452) = 38.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.11, 4.14], t(452) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.13, 2.06], t(452) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.34], t(452) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.73e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(452) = 90.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.32], t(452) = -0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(452) = -0.87, p = 0.386; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.61], t(452) = 0.79, p = 0.430; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(452) = 46.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(452) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [0.12, 1.29], t(452) = 2.38, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.04, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-1.63, 0.06], t(452) = -1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(452) = 34.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(452) = 0.87, p = 0.386; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-7.42e-03, 1.24], t(452) = 1.94, p = 0.053; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-1.76e-03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.08], t(452) = 0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(452) = 44.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.89], t(452) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [0.28, 2.37], t(452) = 2.48, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.04, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-2.11, 0.92], t(452) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.05, 19.64], t(452) = 46.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(452) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [0.26, 1.50], t(452) = 2.78, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.06, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 8.15e-03, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.91], t(452) = 0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = 1.82e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(452) = 64.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.61], t(452) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.65], t(452) = 0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.07], t(452) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(452) = 42.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.67], t(452) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.09], t(452) = -1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.33], t(452) = -1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.87e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(452) = 32.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(452) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.13], t(452) = -1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.09], t(452) = -1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(452) = 30.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(452) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-0.98, -3.46e-03], t(452) = -1.97, p = 0.048; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, -9.26e-04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.46], t(452) = -0.68, p = 0.496; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.12])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(452) = 26.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(452) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.23], t(452) = -1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.35, 0.04], t(452) = -1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.01])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.39e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.45, 31.12], t(452) = 31.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(452) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-2.31, 0.12], t(452) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-3.21, 0.33], t(452) = -1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,457.558 | 1,469.939 | -725.779 | 1,451.558 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,460.755 | 1,485.516 | -724.378 | 1,448.755 | 2.803 | 3 | 0.423 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 2,207.490 | 2,219.871 | -1,100.745 | 2,201.490 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 2,201.026 | 2,225.788 | -1,094.513 | 2,189.026 | 12.464 | 3 | 0.006 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,739.524 | 2,751.905 | -1,366.762 | 2,733.524 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,724.427 | 2,749.188 | -1,356.213 | 2,712.427 | 21.098 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,859.827 | 1,872.208 | -926.914 | 1,853.827 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,862.502 | 1,887.263 | -925.251 | 1,850.502 | 3.325 | 3 | 0.344 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 2,266.999 | 2,279.380 | -1,130.500 | 2,260.999 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 2,259.342 | 2,284.103 | -1,123.671 | 2,247.342 | 13.657 | 3 | 0.003 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 2,137.847 | 2,150.227 | -1,065.923 | 2,131.847 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 2,131.187 | 2,155.948 | -1,059.593 | 2,119.187 | 12.660 | 3 | 0.005 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 2,028.439 | 2,040.819 | -1,011.219 | 2,022.439 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 2,018.990 | 2,043.751 | -1,003.495 | 2,006.990 | 15.449 | 3 | 0.001 |
symptom | null | 3 | 3,211.752 | 3,224.132 | -1,602.876 | 3,205.752 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 3,205.804 | 3,230.565 | -1,596.902 | 3,193.804 | 11.948 | 3 | 0.008 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,555.636 | 2,568.016 | -1,274.818 | 2,549.636 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,557.509 | 2,582.270 | -1,272.754 | 2,545.509 | 4.127 | 3 | 0.248 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,751.952 | 2,764.333 | -1,372.976 | 2,745.952 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,752.047 | 2,776.809 | -1,370.024 | 2,740.047 | 5.904 | 3 | 0.116 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,945.672 | 2,958.052 | -1,469.836 | 2,939.672 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,935.578 | 2,960.340 | -1,461.789 | 2,923.578 | 16.093 | 3 | 0.001 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 2,343.129 | 2,355.509 | -1,168.564 | 2,337.129 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 2,343.125 | 2,367.887 | -1,165.563 | 2,331.125 | 6.003 | 3 | 0.111 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,796.449 | 2,808.830 | -1,395.225 | 2,790.449 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,791.587 | 2,816.348 | -1,389.793 | 2,779.587 | 10.863 | 3 | 0.012 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,916.777 | 2,929.158 | -1,455.389 | 2,910.777 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,912.223 | 2,936.984 | -1,450.112 | 2,900.223 | 10.554 | 3 | 0.014 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,540.270 | 2,552.651 | -1,267.135 | 2,534.270 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,529.430 | 2,554.192 | -1,258.715 | 2,517.430 | 16.840 | 3 | 0.001 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 2,101.750 | 2,114.131 | -1,047.875 | 2,095.750 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 2,098.079 | 2,122.841 | -1,043.040 | 2,086.079 | 9.671 | 3 | 0.022 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 2,214.461 | 2,226.842 | -1,104.231 | 2,208.461 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 2,208.613 | 2,233.374 | -1,098.306 | 2,196.613 | 11.849 | 3 | 0.008 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 2,215.930 | 2,228.311 | -1,104.965 | 2,209.930 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 2,211.301 | 2,236.062 | -1,099.650 | 2,199.301 | 10.629 | 3 | 0.014 |
els | null | 3 | 2,756.093 | 2,768.474 | -1,375.047 | 2,750.093 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,747.362 | 2,772.123 | -1,367.681 | 2,735.362 | 14.731 | 3 | 0.002 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 3,165.312 | 3,177.692 | -1,579.656 | 3,159.312 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 3,157.834 | 3,182.595 | -1,572.917 | 3,145.834 | 13.477 | 3 | 0.004 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,603.305 | 2,615.686 | -1,298.652 | 2,597.305 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,597.446 | 2,622.207 | -1,292.723 | 2,585.446 | 11.859 | 3 | 0.008 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,445.322 | 2,457.703 | -1,219.661 | 2,439.322 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,434.768 | 2,459.529 | -1,211.384 | 2,422.768 | 16.554 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs | null | 3 | 3,103.582 | 3,115.963 | -1,548.791 | 3,097.582 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 3,093.430 | 3,118.192 | -1,540.715 | 3,081.430 | 16.151 | 3 | 0.001 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,672.247 | 1,684.627 | -833.123 | 1,666.247 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,677.418 | 1,702.179 | -832.709 | 1,665.418 | 0.828 | 3 | 0.843 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 2,357.608 | 2,369.988 | -1,175.804 | 2,351.608 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 2,357.031 | 2,381.792 | -1,172.515 | 2,345.031 | 6.577 | 3 | 0.087 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,502.636 | 2,515.016 | -1,248.318 | 2,496.636 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,498.378 | 2,523.139 | -1,243.189 | 2,486.378 | 10.258 | 3 | 0.016 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,958.668 | 2,971.049 | -1,476.334 | 2,952.668 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,955.698 | 2,980.460 | -1,471.849 | 2,943.698 | 8.970 | 3 | 0.030 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,544.737 | 2,557.117 | -1,269.368 | 2,538.737 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,535.441 | 2,560.203 | -1,261.721 | 2,523.441 | 15.295 | 3 | 0.002 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 2,071.969 | 2,084.349 | -1,032.984 | 2,065.969 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 2,069.039 | 2,093.800 | -1,028.520 | 2,057.039 | 8.929 | 3 | 0.030 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 2,250.882 | 2,263.263 | -1,122.441 | 2,244.882 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 2,244.738 | 2,269.499 | -1,116.369 | 2,232.738 | 12.145 | 3 | 0.007 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 2,320.857 | 2,333.237 | -1,157.428 | 2,314.857 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 2,311.708 | 2,336.469 | -1,149.854 | 2,299.708 | 15.149 | 3 | 0.002 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 2,343.953 | 2,356.333 | -1,168.976 | 2,337.953 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 2,338.165 | 2,362.926 | -1,163.082 | 2,326.165 | 11.788 | 3 | 0.008 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 2,343.724 | 2,356.105 | -1,168.862 | 2,337.724 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 2,336.556 | 2,361.318 | -1,162.278 | 2,324.556 | 13.168 | 3 | 0.004 |
sss | null | 3 | 3,253.505 | 3,265.885 | -1,623.752 | 3,247.505 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 3,241.913 | 3,266.674 | -1,614.956 | 3,229.913 | 17.592 | 3 | 0.001 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 125 | 3.20 ± 1.21 | 125 | 3.07 ± 1.21 | 0.405 | 0.129 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 110 | 3.23 ± 1.21 | -0.030 | 98 | 3.29 ± 1.20 | -0.222 | 0.708 | -0.063 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 125 | 17.88 ± 3.01 | 125 | 17.80 ± 3.01 | 0.834 | 0.045 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 110 | 17.72 ± 2.93 | 0.090 | 98 | 18.64 ± 2.87 | -0.475 | 0.023 | -0.520 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 125 | 29.69 ± 5.63 | 125 | 30.02 ± 5.63 | 0.637 | -0.117 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 110 | 30.38 ± 5.44 | -0.242 | 98 | 31.71 ± 5.28 | -0.589 | 0.075 | -0.465 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 125 | 11.62 ± 2.04 | 125 | 11.66 ± 2.04 | 0.901 | -0.025 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 110 | 11.67 ± 1.99 | -0.034 | 98 | 11.96 ± 1.96 | -0.239 | 0.288 | -0.230 |
ras_goal | 1st | 125 | 17.18 ± 3.24 | 125 | 17.53 ± 3.24 | 0.402 | -0.186 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 110 | 17.59 ± 3.15 | -0.220 | 98 | 18.33 ± 3.08 | -0.434 | 0.088 | -0.399 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 125 | 13.14 ± 2.94 | 125 | 13.33 ± 2.94 | 0.621 | -0.122 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 110 | 13.49 ± 2.84 | -0.228 | 98 | 13.97 ± 2.76 | -0.429 | 0.212 | -0.324 |
ras_domination | 1st | 125 | 9.95 ± 2.39 | 125 | 9.56 ± 2.39 | 0.196 | 0.255 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 110 | 10.07 ± 2.34 | -0.078 | 98 | 10.40 ± 2.30 | -0.547 | 0.308 | -0.214 |
symptom | 1st | 125 | 31.50 ± 9.80 | 125 | 30.21 ± 9.80 | 0.300 | 0.279 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 110 | 30.06 ± 9.44 | 0.311 | 98 | 28.66 ± 9.14 | 0.334 | 0.280 | 0.302 |
slof_work | 1st | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.57 | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.57 | 0.989 | 0.003 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 110 | 22.50 ± 4.44 | -0.174 | 98 | 22.60 ± 4.32 | -0.219 | 0.864 | -0.042 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 125 | 24.50 ± 5.73 | 125 | 25.34 ± 5.73 | 0.248 | -0.280 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 110 | 24.98 ± 5.55 | -0.159 | 98 | 26.04 ± 5.40 | -0.233 | 0.163 | -0.353 |
satisfaction | 1st | 125 | 19.66 ± 7.19 | 125 | 21.03 ± 7.19 | 0.133 | -0.388 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 110 | 20.96 ± 6.93 | -0.367 | 98 | 22.31 ± 6.73 | -0.364 | 0.154 | -0.384 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 125 | 10.65 ± 3.75 | 125 | 11.00 ± 3.75 | 0.459 | -0.190 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 110 | 11.10 ± 3.62 | -0.242 | 98 | 11.40 ± 3.52 | -0.214 | 0.544 | -0.163 |
mhc_social | 1st | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.07 | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.07 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 110 | 15.92 ± 5.87 | -0.258 | 98 | 16.30 ± 5.70 | -0.383 | 0.634 | -0.125 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 125 | 21.55 ± 7.03 | 125 | 21.87 ± 7.03 | 0.719 | -0.094 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 110 | 22.72 ± 6.78 | -0.343 | 98 | 22.86 ± 6.57 | -0.289 | 0.882 | -0.040 |
resilisnce | 1st | 125 | 16.18 ± 4.33 | 125 | 16.94 ± 4.33 | 0.167 | -0.303 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 110 | 16.80 ± 4.22 | -0.249 | 98 | 18.06 ± 4.12 | -0.448 | 0.030 | -0.503 |
social_provision | 1st | 125 | 13.17 ± 2.80 | 125 | 13.91 ± 2.80 | 0.036 | -0.502 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 110 | 13.16 ± 2.71 | 0.002 | 98 | 14.25 ± 2.64 | -0.228 | 0.004 | -0.733 |
els_value_living | 1st | 125 | 16.76 ± 3.18 | 125 | 17.15 ± 3.18 | 0.330 | -0.237 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 110 | 17.14 ± 3.07 | -0.229 | 98 | 17.79 ± 2.99 | -0.386 | 0.123 | -0.394 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 125 | 12.41 ± 3.28 | 125 | 13.10 ± 3.28 | 0.095 | -0.440 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 110 | 12.76 ± 3.16 | -0.219 | 98 | 13.58 ± 3.07 | -0.301 | 0.057 | -0.521 |
els | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 6.00 | 125 | 30.26 ± 6.00 | 0.153 | -0.394 | ||
els | 2nd | 110 | 29.89 ± 5.78 | -0.263 | 98 | 31.38 ± 5.59 | -0.408 | 0.060 | -0.539 |
social_connect | 1st | 125 | 27.88 ± 9.17 | 125 | 26.66 ± 9.17 | 0.295 | 0.271 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 110 | 27.03 ± 8.85 | 0.189 | 98 | 24.72 ± 8.58 | 0.434 | 0.057 | 0.516 |
shs_agency | 1st | 125 | 13.84 ± 4.97 | 125 | 14.85 ± 4.97 | 0.110 | -0.414 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 110 | 14.20 ± 4.79 | -0.149 | 98 | 15.73 ± 4.65 | -0.364 | 0.020 | -0.628 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 125 | 15.33 ± 4.03 | 125 | 16.34 ± 4.03 | 0.049 | -0.470 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 110 | 15.93 ± 3.91 | -0.281 | 98 | 17.16 ± 3.80 | -0.382 | 0.023 | -0.571 |
shs | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 8.57 | 125 | 31.18 ± 8.57 | 0.064 | -0.484 | ||
shs | 2nd | 110 | 30.13 ± 8.27 | -0.232 | 98 | 32.90 ± 8.01 | -0.411 | 0.015 | -0.664 |
esteem | 1st | 125 | 12.80 ± 1.59 | 125 | 12.73 ± 1.59 | 0.720 | 0.063 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 110 | 12.67 ± 1.57 | 0.115 | 98 | 12.77 ± 1.55 | -0.036 | 0.638 | -0.089 |
mlq_search | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 3.45 | 125 | 15.08 ± 3.45 | 0.100 | -0.322 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 110 | 15.07 ± 3.38 | -0.317 | 98 | 15.00 ± 3.33 | 0.036 | 0.882 | 0.031 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 125 | 13.15 ± 4.23 | 125 | 13.62 ± 4.23 | 0.386 | -0.195 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 110 | 13.77 ± 4.11 | -0.259 | 98 | 14.41 ± 4.01 | -0.332 | 0.257 | -0.268 |
mlq | 1st | 125 | 27.51 ± 6.90 | 125 | 28.70 ± 6.90 | 0.176 | -0.296 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 110 | 28.84 ± 6.72 | -0.331 | 98 | 29.42 ± 6.57 | -0.182 | 0.525 | -0.147 |
empower | 1st | 125 | 18.85 ± 4.53 | 125 | 19.38 ± 4.53 | 0.357 | -0.223 | ||
empower | 2nd | 110 | 19.73 ± 4.38 | -0.372 | 98 | 20.27 ± 4.26 | -0.375 | 0.372 | -0.226 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 2.48 | 125 | 14.35 ± 2.48 | 0.980 | 0.005 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 110 | 14.58 ± 2.44 | -0.128 | 98 | 15.01 ± 2.40 | -0.388 | 0.201 | -0.256 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 125 | 11.79 ± 3.07 | 125 | 11.70 ± 3.07 | 0.821 | 0.045 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 110 | 11.37 ± 3.00 | 0.215 | 98 | 10.87 ± 2.95 | 0.426 | 0.228 | 0.255 |
sss_affective | 1st | 125 | 10.40 ± 3.63 | 125 | 10.62 ± 3.63 | 0.626 | -0.125 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 110 | 10.06 ± 3.50 | 0.187 | 98 | 9.70 ± 3.40 | 0.518 | 0.443 | 0.206 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 125 | 10.18 ± 3.72 | 125 | 10.10 ± 3.72 | 0.865 | 0.043 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 110 | 9.69 ± 3.59 | 0.264 | 98 | 9.36 ± 3.49 | 0.397 | 0.508 | 0.176 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 125 | 8.71 ± 3.74 | 125 | 9.12 ± 3.74 | 0.389 | -0.223 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 110 | 8.46 ± 3.61 | 0.137 | 98 | 8.22 ± 3.50 | 0.493 | 0.619 | 0.134 |
sss | 1st | 125 | 29.29 ± 10.46 | 125 | 29.84 ± 10.46 | 0.677 | -0.119 | ||
sss | 2nd | 110 | 28.19 ± 10.05 | 0.237 | 98 | 27.31 ± 9.70 | 0.547 | 0.519 | 0.191 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(413.79) = -0.83, p = 0.405, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)
2st
t(435.67) = 0.37, p = 0.708, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.39)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(330.63) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)
2st
t(372.19) = 2.29, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.71)
ras_confidence
1st
t(308.04) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.74)
2st
t(345.81) = 1.79, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.79)
ras_willingness
1st
t(341.30) = 0.12, p = 0.901, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.54)
2st
t(383.00) = 1.06, p = 0.288, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.83)
ras_goal
1st
t(325.62) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.15)
2st
t(366.76) = 1.71, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.59)
ras_reliance
1st
t(308.61) = 0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)
2st
t(346.54) = 1.25, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.25)
ras_domination
1st
t(348.39) = -1.30, p = 0.196, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.20)
2st
t(389.68) = 1.02, p = 0.308, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.96)
symptom
1st
t(298.77) = -1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.15)
2st
t(333.48) = -1.08, p = 0.280, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.93 to 1.14)
slof_work
1st
t(317.20) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.13)
2st
t(357.11) = 0.17, p = 0.864, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.30)
slof_relationship
1st
t(311.97) = 1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)
2st
t(350.77) = 1.40, p = 0.163, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.56)
satisfaction
1st
t(303.36) = 1.50, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.16)
2st
t(339.70) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.51 to 3.22)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(304.08) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.29)
2st
t(340.66) = 0.61, p = 0.544, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.28)
mhc_social
1st
t(306.93) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)
2st
t(344.38) = 0.48, p = 0.634, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.96)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(302.30) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)
2st
t(338.29) = 0.15, p = 0.882, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.69 to 1.96)
resilisnce
1st
t(327.56) = 1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)
2st
t(368.88) = 2.18, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.12 to 2.40)
social_provision
1st
t(313.44) = 2.10, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)
2st
t(352.57) = 2.93, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.36 to 1.82)
els_value_living
1st
t(310.88) = 0.98, p = 0.330, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.18)
2st
t(349.41) = 1.55, p = 0.123, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.48)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(301.21) = 1.68, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.51)
2st
t(336.82) = 1.91, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.68)
els
1st
t(296.04) = 1.43, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.58)
2st
t(329.66) = 1.89, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.06 to 3.04)
social_connect
1st
t(303.02) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.07)
2st
t(339.25) = -1.91, p = 0.057, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-4.69 to 0.07)
shs_agency
1st
t(303.29) = 1.60, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.24)
2st
t(339.61) = 2.34, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.24 to 2.82)
shs_pathway
1st
t(314.21) = 1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.01)
2st
t(353.52) = 2.29, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.17 to 2.28)
shs
1st
t(302.22) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.12 to 4.15)
2st
t(338.17) = 2.45, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (0.54 to 4.99)
esteem
1st
t(377.03) = -0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.32)
2st
t(412.90) = 0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.53)
mlq_search
1st
t(349.95) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)
2st
t(391.09) = -0.15, p = 0.882, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.85)
mlq_presence
1st
t(323.28) = 0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.52)
2st
t(364.14) = 1.13, p = 0.257, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.75)
mlq
1st
t(327.65) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)
2st
t(368.99) = 0.64, p = 0.525, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.23 to 2.40)
empower
1st
t(311.95) = 0.92, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.65)
2st
t(350.74) = 0.89, p = 0.372, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.72)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(360.94) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)
2st
t(400.54) = 1.28, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.09)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(346.71) = -0.23, p = 0.821, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.68)
2st
t(388.13) = -1.21, p = 0.228, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.31)
sss_affective
1st
t(303.93) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)
2st
t(340.46) = -0.77, p = 0.443, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.57)
sss_behavior
1st
t(305.19) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)
2st
t(342.12) = -0.66, p = 0.508, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.64)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(303.07) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)
2st
t(339.31) = -0.50, p = 0.619, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.73)
sss
1st
t(292.29) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.16)
2st
t(324.29) = -0.65, p = 0.519, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.58 to 1.81)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(234.42) = 1.61, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.49)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(221.24) = 3.39, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.33)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(217.47) = 4.18, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.89 to 2.48)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(222.95) = 1.71, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.65)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(220.42) = 3.09, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.29 to 1.32)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(217.57) = 3.05, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.06)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(224.08) = 3.91, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.42 to 1.26)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(215.86) = -2.37, p = 0.038, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.83 to -0.26)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(219.03) = 1.56, p = 0.242, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.23)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(218.15) = 1.65, p = 0.200, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.53)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(216.67) = 2.58, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.30 to 2.26)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(216.79) = 1.52, p = 0.260, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.91)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(217.28) = 2.72, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.32 to 2.03)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(216.48) = 2.05, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.94)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(220.74) = 3.19, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.43 to 1.82)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(218.39) = 1.62, p = 0.213, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.75)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(217.96) = 2.74, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.10)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(216.29) = 2.13, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.04 to 0.92)
els
1st vs 2st
t(215.38) = 2.89, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.36 to 1.89)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(216.61) = -3.07, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-3.19 to -0.70)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(216.65) = 2.58, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.56)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(218.52) = 2.71, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.41)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(216.47) = 2.92, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.56 to 2.87)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(228.54) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.36)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(224.32) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.53)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(220.04) = 2.37, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.45)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(220.75) = 1.30, p = 0.393, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.83)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(218.14) = 2.67, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.55)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(226.04) = 2.79, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.12)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(223.81) = -3.04, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.37 to -0.29)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(216.77) = -3.67, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-1.42 to -0.43)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(216.98) = -2.81, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.25 to -0.22)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(216.61) = -3.50, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.41 to -0.39)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(214.71) = -3.87, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-3.82 to -1.24)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(222.94) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.29)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(214.70) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.31)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(212.50) = 1.81, p = 0.144, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.45)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(215.72) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.38)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(214.22) = 1.65, p = 0.200, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.08 to 0.90)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(212.55) = 1.70, p = 0.180, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.74)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(216.40) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.28 to 0.52)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(211.57) = -2.32, p = 0.043, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.66 to -0.22)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(213.40) = 1.30, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.09)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(212.89) = 1.19, p = 0.474, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.27)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(212.03) = 2.74, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.36 to 2.23)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(212.10) = 1.80, p = 0.145, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.94)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(212.39) = 1.93, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.60)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(211.92) = 2.56, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.27 to 2.07)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(214.41) = 1.86, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.28)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(213.03) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.39)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(212.78) = 1.71, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.81)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(211.81) = 1.64, p = 0.206, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.76)
els
1st vs 2st
t(211.29) = 1.96, p = 0.103, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.45)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(212.00) = -1.41, p = 0.318, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.34)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(212.02) = 1.11, p = 0.533, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.01)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(213.11) = 2.10, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.17)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(211.91) = 1.73, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.07)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(219.14) = -0.87, p = 0.773, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(216.55) = 2.38, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.12 to 1.29)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(213.99) = 1.94, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.25)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(214.42) = 2.48, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.27 to 2.37)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(212.88) = 2.78, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.51)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(217.59) = 0.96, p = 0.673, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.66)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(216.24) = -1.62, p = 0.215, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.09)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(212.09) = -1.40, p = 0.327, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.81 to 0.14)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(212.21) = -1.97, p = 0.099, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-0.98 to -0.00)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(212.00) = -1.02, p = 0.617, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.23)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(210.90) = -1.76, p = 0.158, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-2.32 to 0.13)